Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What factors are important? How do you know if a given programming language is "simple" or "simpler" than another language?
I'm not sure if this is a fair question to ask, since different languages serve different purposes and it might not really be comparing apples to apples.
However, with that said, memory management would come to mind. One can argue that Java is a "simpler" language than C++, since it has a garbage collector that can deal with some of the complexities around memory management, instead of forcing you to do it yourself.
In my perspective, these are the points that define the complexity of a language.
Variation of syntax from common pseudocode and constructs
Ease of developing a structure for real-life entities like objects
Methods of structure enforcement at compile time.
Memory management strategy allocation/deallocation
Code reusability
Ease of code headers and directives management
Inbuilt libraries
Relative installation package sizes
Data exchange capabilities like over network of files
Process handling like thread management
Relative brevity of the code
Speed of compilation
Developer community size and documentation
OpenSource implementations
Platform dependence
And many more could be added to this list.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am new to programming and I try to research as much as possible in this field. And once I came across to this expression: "Extreme and pair programming". Pair programming is an easy term, and I found quite clear documentation about this. But extreme programming... I found some articles about it, but explanation wasn't so well. All I understood that extreme programming is an Agile development framework. But why I must use that, what is difference between this and another types of programming styles?
Can anyone explain me what is extreme programming language very clearly?
Extreme programming (often called XP) is an agile framework that was developed by Kent Beck in the 1990's.
There aren't too many people that use the whole XP framework these days, but a lot of the engineering practices it popularised are very common.
Examples include:
Pair programming
Test driven development
Continuous integration
Frequent releases
Constant refactoring
XP favours an approach of writing the minimum amount of code to solve the problem at hand. Things like optimisation and forward planning are generally a low priority. This is the 'extreme' part of extreme programming.
The idea is that you write code to solve the current requirement. If you then find you need the code to be faster, or scaleable, etc. then you refactor it.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm worried that approach to asynchronous exceptions in GHC might be a net-loss for many applications.
While the paper explains the design to a great detail, it's too complex for average programmers to tell whether this approach provides any benefits at all in their daily work.
Section 2 lists four reasons for current approach (speculative computation, timeouts, user interrupt and resource exhaustion). In my opinion, three are about ability to cancel computations and one is about ability to recover from resource exhaustion which I find questionable (is there any publicly available code that demonstrates this?).
In particular, as mentioned in the paper, Java deprecated Thread.stop() because aborted computation would result in undefined state. Aren't IO actions in GHC subject to the same? Add laziness and the API becomes much more complex in comparison for no clear benefit to most applications.
To summarize, if GHC used the same approach as Java (safe-points, interrupt polling) what would be the consequences to the ecosystem?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently confused in incremental software methodology
what is the main difference between incremental development which adopt plan driven approach and the one that adopt agile approach ?
can anyone explain to me what is the difference between those two and if my choice was good for the project?
Learning is at the core of the agile approaches. It embraces the fact that it is almost impossible to have enough information to make detailed plan up front. Instead implementing, or possibly trying to implement, your first feature will trigger very valuable learnings. Both about your implementation and the usage and actual needs in the field.
I'm not sure what "documentations are really important" actually means, but dividing implementation along module boundaries will cause a number of unwanted effects:
you can only learn about the usage of the complete system after all modules are done, a.k.a. Too late. That will drive unknown remaining amount of work after you thought you were done.
how do you know that the first module is done? Presumably based on some guesswork about what it should do, which might be right but most probably is at least slightly wrong, which causes unknown late modifications
integration problems will also show up after the third module was supposed to be finished
All three drive late realizations about problems and unknown amount of work left to the end.
Agile focuses on driving out these learnings and information by forcing early feedback, such as early integration (as soon as there is a skeleton for the three modules), user feedback by forcing implementation of one user level feature at a time with demos of them as soon as hty are ready.
It is a strategy for minimizing risks in all software endeavours.
In my mind, you should have gone for an agile aproach.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to know whether the most common software development suits such as Microsoft visual studio its compilers are optimized for using the Hyper-Threading feature to the maximum extent? Is it worthy to go for a hyper-threaded processor for working with those softwares?
I have read many reviews that hyper threading is only useful for intensive multi threaded applications like video editors,etc..Some reviews says that softwares which are not optimized for using Hyper threading can suffer a decrease in performance and many people run their systems with hyper threading turned off.
As I am a novice programmer I would like to know whether those arguments and reviews stands true in the field of programming.
Again I am talking about the compilers and IDE and not the applications that I 'am going to create!(as if now I don't know how to create multi-threaded applications!!)
Since you have not made up your mind on what IDE/development platform to use then there may be other factors to consider besides threading. Most high level languages and compilers do support thread pooling, which is probably what you are looking for. I can't speak for compilers I have not used so I will leave a link to the article below:
.Net and hyper threading
It appears to be a bit dated, but the basic concepts are explained.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
In the UML reference manual page 18
Full specifications of a final system:
An implementation model includes enough information to build the system. It must include not only the logical semantics of the system and the algorithms, data structures, and mechanisms that ensure proper performance, but also organizational decisions about the system artifacts
that are necessary for cooperative work by humans and processing by tools
What the highlighted sentence means?
It basically means that with UML modeling, you can go far beyond describing algorithms. You can (and should) put the technical information in context and describe what the system you describe is good for, how it will be used, for what purpose and by whom.
Perhaps because it's an obscure usage, you might be wondering about the use of the word "artifacts" here. In this context, it refers to any of the persisted entities in your design, which can include databases, files, archives, cloud-storage, tapes, printouts, etc. Basically any component in the system that has a lifetime or can serve as long-term memory.